Here is a link to a site that I think everyone should check out; it is slightly similar to the topic we discussed a few weeks ago, but more importantly, it tells you something about a portion of so-called conservatives:
Conservapedia.
"A conservative encyclopedia you can trust." This is the conservatives version of Wikipedia. It seems that these people think that Wikipedia has a "liberal bias." (Remember, reality has a liberal bias.) Read the article on evolution- they actually manage to turn their evolution article into a swipe at Bill Clinton!!!!
I think that this site, while also extremely amusing (and completely maddening), shows you something about the mindset of conservatives (or at least a certain portion of them): they do not wish to exist in reality. They would rather make their own reality. And anyone who does not agree with their constructed and false reality, you're evil and bad and existing under a "liberal bias." It's a total authoritarian mindset- they honestly can't exist in actual reality. They are so fragile and insecure that they can't handle anything that threatens their twisted, delusional and revisionist reality. While I'm fine with relegating these people to their own reality, it's scary to think that these people have more or less been running our country for the past six years, if not longer, and attempt to push their version of reality upon everyone else. I suppose the thing that gives me the most hope is the fact that their reality is increasingly crashing down on them- their war is unpopular, their president is extremely unpopular, they lost big in the last election, their 2008 presidential field sucks (while the Dem field is energizing people), etc. And as their world keeps closing in on them, their message and ideology and tactics and "messages" get increasingly more bizarre, shrill and incoherent, and they seemingly have to retreat into their own made-up fantasy reality, one free of so-called "liberal bias" (of which Wikipedia obviously has none- but Wikipedia will obviously not allow these idiots to post their own false information and propaganda).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Perhaps it's because I just woke up, or perhaps someone's edited the wiki at conservapedia, but I can't find any swipes at Bill Clinton under the evolution section.
Nonetheless, I think that conservapedia is INSANE. It's a bunch of Christian-conservatives who would rather wikipedia spoke with a conservative Christian voice, eliminating all other. Since that can't happen on wikipedia, they've gone and set up their own wiki where it can.
Check out conservapedia's examples of bias in wikipedia. Also, it's interesting to compare conservapedia's article on creationism with wikipedia's version.
Wow, that's very strange. Someone gutted quite a bit of the Evolution entry- it was extremely long when I just looked at it earlier.
Luckily, for posterity, I made a copy of the entry. Here is what I was talking about (taken directly from the site verbatim):
The distinction between Microevolution and Macroevolution is often used as a rhetorical device to avoid analysis of evidence by placing all cases for which the evidence is firm into the former category. This argument is similar to that of defenders of Bill Clinton during his impeachment, in which his misconduct was divided into the categories "not rising to the level of impeachment" and "serious if proven true", and cases of misconduct which could no longer be credibly be denied were assigned to the former category in order to deny their significance.
Insanity. But while it is obviously insane, my larger point is that it gives some insight into the mindset of many conservatives- that they are increasingly detached from reality and are increasingly creating their own deranged and delusional reality. While they are obviously in the minority and their numbers may be dwindling, they command quite a bit of influence in politics. If there is one thing I wish to see happen, it is to completely banish these revisionist psycho idiots into the political and social circular file forever.
Damn that's nutty!
Of course the thing that makes a wiki what it is - anyone can edit. At least some conservative out there had the sense to get rid of that!
But check out what I found on conservapedia's abortion article:
The majority of scientific studies have shown that abortion causes an increase in breast cancer, including 16 out of 17 statistically significant studies. However, like the tobacco industry in the 1950s, the abortion industry has so far kept this important information away from much of the public. This may be due to the profitability of selling fetal parts for Chinese medicine.
It's also interesting to compare conservapedia's abortion article with wikipedia's.
hmmm... interesting points, but the "conservatives this" and "conservatives that" generalizations do kind of grate on some of us. see, i'm one of those unlucky "independent" folks who decides, issue by issue, what i believe. for example, i am pro gay rights -so pro them that i got myself a bunch of mormon hate mail for putting a pro gay-marriage letter in byu's newspaper (i compared it to polygamy and suggested that just because someone doesn't like a certain practice, it's not right to persecute those who do like it). on the other hand, i am anti-abortion. i am behind the idea of mandatory birth control for teens, and education and all that, but once a child is conceived, i don't believe that it's right for anyone to choose if that child has a right to live. that said, since it's legal to get abortions, i don't go out and bomb planned parenthood, and i don't hate people who go there. shoot, i've gone there myself to get my pills a couple of times.
the point is, that having one or two conservative views does not mean that i hate wiki, or that my world is crashing down around me or anything like that. i doubt that i'm the only person in the world who doesn't fit solidly in one camp or the other, but it is tough to find people who explain their viewpoints without thoroughly bashing the other side.
if the "side" one is on is right, one ought to be able to justify it by pointing out why it's right, not necessarily why the "other side" is wrong.
Linda - yay! Glad to see you online :-)
Wanted to agree with you somewhat when regarding your statement, it is tough to find people who explain their viewpoints without thoroughly bashing the other side. I'm sure we here at blogsupergoup are often guilty of this as we're so freakin liberal.
However, the problem I have with both conservapedia and wikichix (which we talked about a while back) is the idea that in each a side (conservatives and feminists, respectively) chooses to withdraw from an area open to public discussion/moderation, and to provide heavily biased information without allowing for input from other views. I mean, I'm a feminist, but I think wikichix is simply a foolish idea that will only increase alienation. I think that conservapedia will do the same, for at least a certain category of conservatives.
Well, I don't remember saying "conservatives this" and "conservatives that," but I brought up conservatives because...it's called Conservapedia. But I did make sure to qualify it by saying "a certain category of conservatives" etc.; so that it would be obvious I didn't mean all conservatives. My parents- hell, my whole family- consider themselves conservative. But, they are not the kind of conservative I'm talking about here- the authoritarian kind who must submit to authority and anyone who does not is a "traitor" etc., and the kind who has to create an alternate, revisionist kind of reality to exist in, because the truth doesn't fit their worldview.
I wasn't talking about any views or issues on anything here; and most of the time (if you know me or have read most of what I've written), when I talk about issues, I do so without bashing the other side- at least until the other side of the argument comes up. But I think it is sometimes appropriate to bring up the other argument. This wasn't an issues post. And I don't remember saying "conservatives this" and "conservatives that." I'd grant that the types that would promote this Conservapedia are a minority of conservatives- they just happen to be the ones that wield the most influence in politics at the moment, and I find their methods and views problematic.
FALSITY OF THE PRESS'S ALLEGED "LIBERAL BIAS"
When there was just a glimmer of a rumor of a charge
(Or evidence illegally obtained)
Then it was hunting season, as reporters sauntered large
Though decorous civility was strained--
Yet subsequent to Clinton other presidents it seems
Have had concealed rape charges that nobody
Raises amongst the press corps preferential weaving dreams,
Then too forgetting that war can be bloody.
Those making allegations--say of rape or of cocaine--
While unreported in the press have gone
To suicide conveniently--can anyone explain?
The public, blithely ignorant, goes on.
Why in one hand the allegation gets treated like fact,
Whilst in another utterly ignored?
Ah well, the world loves Clinton--weathering that was attacked--
But how much weather ought our race afford?
Perhaps what policy or what a man has done before--
Successful or a failure in his business--
Were best to be examined before opening one´s door
Relying not on hearsay borne of laziness.
The populace as never sinned a day in all its life
Has made a mountain from man´s little foible:
A man is wise who tells a little white lie to his wife,
As I learned that much from the Holy Bible!
Post a Comment